science vs religious

[Aupmanyav]

Teachers. If you would be kind enough to tell me about these paranormal things. I have no experience of these.

 

[George-ananda]

Teachers.

What does that one-word sentence mean here? What about teachers? Do we accept everything? Nothing? Learn for ourselves from scratch?? What are you trying to say??

If you would be kind enough to tell me about these paranormal things.

I'm talking about the world of paranormal phenomena where people, scientists, researchers and regular people analyze and speculate on what might be going on with these things (reincarnational memories, near-death experiences, ghosts, etc.) and how this fits into our view of the universe.

I have no experience of these.

I'm not particularly 'psychic' myself either. I've had small experiences.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What does that one-word sentence mean here? What about teachers? Do we accept everything? Nothing? Learn for ourselves from scratch?? What are you trying to say??

What I meant was checking for oneself if the teacher says anything beyond normal. As an atheist, I do not believe in anything super/paranormal.

reincarnational memories, near-death experiences, ghosts, etc.) and how this fits into our view of the universe.

There is no scientific evidence for reincarnation, reincarnational memories or ghosts. Near-death experience I would take as scientific, the ruminations of brain severely deprived of oxygen or with loads of carbon-di-oxide in the last few minutes/seconds of life with many of its facilities closed down (especially pain-centers. That makes the last phase painless). I think that the second eventuality is more important.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Whether it's required or not is not the only question. Does it exist is the question all men want answered.

I kindly disagree. The question of 'does' it exist is a personal question, I give you that. But the question of whether or not it's required would seem to me to have greater import. If we assume it does exist or does not exist, there is little effect beyond our own understanding. But if we assume it's necessary, we then have license to behave, without regard to others, in accordance with whatever doctrine is being taught. E.g. "I believe in god," verses "It's ok to kill infidels." or "I believe homesexuality is a sin," verses "I need to put roadblocks in front of someone else's life choices."

Of course I'm not speaking of all religions or all individuals of any particular religion. But if a person believes that heaven is more important then here and now, then here and now is expendable along with anyone who is not a "real" believer.

 

[George-ananda]

There is no scientific evidence for reincarnation, reincarnational memories or ghosts.

Sorry, that is an absolutely meaningless statement. There is no way to 'scientifically' test for these things with test tubes, brain scans or whatever. The evidence for these things is anecdotal where scientific researchers study by interviewing people, researching and considering theories.

Near-death experience I would take as scientific, the ruminations of brain severely deprived of oxygen or with loads of carbon-di-oxide in the last few minutes/seconds of life with many of its facilities closed down (especially pain-centers. That makes the last phase painless). I think that the second eventuality is more important.

That explanation is commonly embraced by atheists. It's of course been considered as an explanation but has come up lacking. For example, how can near-death experiencers come up with specific information about events they couldn't have known through normal channels with your hallucination hypothesis.

In cases of childhood reincarnational memories, the atheist-minded have no answer to how, in the strongest cases, they know specific details.

I think the atheist is in denial that there are mysteries that suggest things they don't want to hear.

 

[George-ananda]

I kindly disagree. The question of 'does' it exist is a personal question, I give you that. But the question of whether or not it's required would seem to me to have greater import. If we assume it does exist or does not exist, there is little effect beyond our own understanding. But if we assume it's necessary, we then have license to behave, without regard to others, in accordance with whatever doctrine is being taught. E.g. "I believe in god," verses "It's ok to kill infidels." or "I believe homesexuality is a sin," verses "I need to put roadblocks in front of someone else's life choices."

Of course I'm not speaking of all religions or all individuals of any particular religion. But if a person believes that heaven is more important then here and now, then here and now is expendable along with anyone who is not a "real" believer.

I think what you are doing here is arguing against 'fanaticism' and not spiritual beliefs. On that I would agree. :yes:

Normal people are not going to restrict their metaphysical thinking because some might turn fanatical.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think what you are doing here is arguing against 'fanaticism' and not spiritual beliefs. On that I would agree. :yes:

Normal people are not going to restrict their metaphysical thinking because some might turn fanatical.

I'm not sure what you mean by fanaticism or normal people. The fanatics would almost certainly claim to be the most spiritual, the 'true believers.' Could it be that fanatic is just a label that someone who considers themself normal uses to describe people they wish to disassociate themselves from? In any case I agree there is an end of a spectrum.

I guess I"m talking mostly about christianity and islam. These seem to be the religions that emphasis a hereafter over the hear and now. And that is what I'm arguing against; prioritizing an after life over this life.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm not sure what you mean by fanaticism or normal people. The fanatics would almost certainly claim to be the most spiritual, the 'true believers.' Could it be that fanatic is just a label that someone who considers themself normal uses to describe people they wish to disassociate themselves from? In any case I agree there is an end of a spectrum.

I guess I"m talking mostly about christianity and islam. These seem to be the religions that emphasis a hereafter over the hear and now. And that is what I'm arguing against; prioritizing an after life over this life.

Prioritizing an afterlife over this life is what I do. But I respect the rights of others to believe and behave differently (what I call 'fanatics' might not).

Are you saying I should have no spiritual beliefs because some people might wrongly not respect the rights of others?

So where do we differ on this point? I don't think we do.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Prioritizing an after life over this life is what I do. But I respect the rights of others to believe and behave differently (what I call 'fanatics' might not).

Are you saying I should have no spiritual beliefs because some people might wrongly not respect the rights of others?

So where do we differ on this point? I don't think we do.

No, I'm not saying you shouldn't have spritiual beliefs

 

[Clarity]

If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

Conflict does not derive from science or religion.

Conflict comes from the people.